Any site that asks for my email address right away, forget it.
I have 700+ email addresses on spamgourmet.com. I get mail on the ones that I want to, and throw out the mail on the other addresses. I can turn them on and off through a web interface.
Why doesn't this work for you?
Because a genealogy site - ANY genealogy site - isn't worth the 15 seconds of my time it would take. So if you want me to look at it, you have to make the barrier to entry pretty much zero.
I have no interest in tracing my ancestry. I know who my parents were, and that's good enough for me. The only reason I went there was idle curiosity. In other words, they offer nothing that I value, so why bother giving them an email address?
the small creature also is a complex, multicelled organism that carries many genes that also exist in humans, and function in the same way.
As a result, the worm provides a crucial keyhole view of the vast world of genetics, said Robert H. Waterston, who led a team at the Washington University Medical School in St. Louis that joined with British scientists to map the worm's genes.
``This worm is really an animal just as we are,'' said Waterston. ``It has muscles and many different kinds of cells. And it also ages, just as we do. By and large, it uses the same genes that we do.''
By studying genes shared by worm and human, researchers will learn at a molecular level what can go wrong and how to fix it. Such microscopic studies are virtually impossible in humans.
``Half of the disease genes in humans have identifiable counterparts in this worm,'' said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He said researchers into many human diseases will be able to use the humble worm as a way of learning how to prevent, treat and cure the illnesses of man.
``I don't think that it is an overstatement to say that the hopes of the parents of a child with a birth defect, the hopes of a young man with a family history of cancer and the hopes of a couple caring for aging parents are advanced'' by this new understanding of the C. elegans, Collins said.
In fact, researchers studying the worm identified genes that have been linked to Alzheimer's disease, to aging and to some forms of cancer, Waterston said.
``The only reason we know about some proteins in Alzheimer's disease is because there are related proteins in the worms, and the function of these proteins had been determined,'' he said.
In terms of the gene-mapping's significance to science in general and to biology in particular, Collins said: ``This is like landing on the moon.''
Collins said that by understanding what happens in the worm cells, researchers also learn what happens in human cells. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75 percent have matches in the worm, Collins said.
"We ARM the world
We ARM the children
We ARM the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start switching
There's a choice we're making
Getting Wintel out of our lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just wait and seeeeeeeeee.
Cheez-whiz isn't food, it's a 'food product'. Thus, it is more along the lines of industrial chemicals and probably should be vetted by the EPA (but that's another story).
Cheez Whiz - something even my dogs won't eat. And dogs will eat baby diapers and "treats" from the kitty litter box. And yet parents will feed it to their kids.
Announcer: First prize is a year's supply of Cheeze Whiz.
Contestant: What's second prize?
Announcer: TWO year's supply of Cheeze Whiz.
yea that was England dude, don't try to dump that shit on the US. I'm thinking you knew this and just conveniently left it out, because it didn't fit your message.
My message is quite simple - that other countries, which in former years were unenlightened, have allowed LGBT to serve in the military, in civilian capacities connected to the military, and in training programs such as ROTC that subsidize people's education, without negative effects.
This definitely fits in with slashdot, where we discuss not just technology, but its social implications. People in the US are denied opportunities to advance in certain areas of technology with one of the biggest employers - the US military - because of anti-LGBT sentiment.
So it's not me "dumping that s*** on the US" - it's the US "dumping that s***" on its own people.
well if other countries military does it, we should to right? extrapolate that out a second and think about why that's a retarded reason to do something.
Don't be such a bunch of cowards. NATO and the EU are already there - they've proven that the fears of allowing LGBT persons to serve openly were overblown.
If you refuse to learn from and profit off of the experience of others, you have a problem. Narcissists often do. "We're different." "We're special." Yes, lambchop, you certainly are. While other countries got rid of the bogey-man long ago, you still cower at the thought that "some gay guy might see my junk in the shower." Seriously - that's one of the most frequent themes cited.
It's relevant. It's relevant to technology because even civilians have to undergo security checks for some tech positions at private corporations. It's relevant because it indicates that eventually, LGBT students at universities can get their education funded by an ROTC program.
Those are just 2 of many ways that it's relevant, but they should be enough to show that it's entirely relevant to slashdot.
Other sites might cover it, but they don't have the same mix of people commenting on it. So again, it's relevant, because many of us here either are part of the LGBT community, or know someone who is, and as a group, we come to it with a slightly different perspective than Joe Six-pack on Facebook.
It's also relevant because many tech companies are at the forefront in equal treatment for LGBT, and it's about time that the military, if it wants to be able to select the best from a wider pool of talent, stop shooting itself in the foot with artificial limitations.
And how is unit cohesion enhanced when some members have to worry about being seen as an "outsider" and "not fit for service" if someone finds out they're gay or lesbian?
The "unit cohesion" argument is bunk. It's the same argument that was made against a racially integrated service. And for keeping women out of combat roles (and thus out of the higher ranks - the military version of the glass ceiling).
If someone's willing to put their life on the line for you, what should it matter who they have waiting for them back home?
Again, other countries have no problems with gays and lesbians serving - they expect their soldiers to behave with a certain level of professionalism and respect for each other.
Just like other countries have no problems with same-sex marriage. They expect their citizens to behave with a certain level of respect for each other.
DADT is institutionalized gay-bashing, nothing less. It shows a paternalistic attitude of significant parts of the military leadership, who believe their men and women can't be trusted to behave as professionals. Read the comments of those who have fought it over the last year. "Some gay guy might see my junk in the shower!" What are they afraid of? That the gay will laugh and say "I've seen better."?
If people in every other walk of life can do it, perhaps its because the military has engaged in anti-same-sex behavior for so long that the self-selection process has yielded an organization that attracts people who are out of step with the rest of society.
That can't be a good thing. Not for a military that, ultimately, is under civilian command. And certainly not for a military that serves as a representative to the rest of the world under some of the worst conditions possible. How are you supposed to have a military that is capable, during peace-keeping, of showing tolerance to other cultures, when you can't even tolerate a large segment of your own?
You then try again to imply that a policy specifically for military personnel will effect civilians.
Until the military clones their soldiers, they'll come from the civilian population. Think "job opportunities". Think "educational subsidies" for university students. Think "careers."
. Yes, the military spends vast amounts on research, but it's research performed by civilians. You haven't shown any connection between research or researchers and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Aside from the obvious ones I listed above - background security checks. When people feel the need to be "in the closet", either as civilians or in the military, security is already compromised. Everything being out in the open means no more opportunities for blackmail.
Singling out Alan Turning is ignoring the contributions by many other people who would have achieved the same results without him. If it wasn't for his dramatic life story he'd be as nameless as the others.
He did it (the code cracking) withing the time frame that it was needed. If someone else had done it 10 years later, it would have meant millions more dead.
Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.
The summary is a bit inaccurate - the military is in fact required to implement the repeal; the actual timetable is set out in the bill, based on certain milestones. So DADT is pretty much dead.
At a buck a page for facebook, productivity will return to business offices, and those "Like" buttons that track you from site to site (facebook's behavioral tracking) even when you're not logged in, will disappear.
Yawn. I'm an ordinary working person and I have a small (by McMansion standards) house covered with solar panels. And I drive a car that gets 34 mpg. I don't care a bit what gasoline costs ($8-10/gallon would be fine, to encourage SUVs off the roads) and I like not paying for electricity. And the 75% of the cost of my panels covered by various government entities subsidized my panels from other *electric* customers, not gasoline taxes. You too could invest a paltry $15K to avoid electric bills for the rest of your time in your house, ordinary working person though you might be..
In other words
your solar panels would be a real money-pit without government cheese to pay 75% of the cost;
You aren't planning on living there for more than another decade or so (solar cells decrease in efficiency over time, so eventually they have to be replace)
Even wonder that the show might be on the other foot, that the Bank of America knowingly dealt with criminals of all sorts including terrorists and that is what they really fear.
You mean like how the KKK can still use their BofA VISA to support the boys in the hoods.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of it - counties fight to get a new jail because it means jobs.
There are millions of people who would sign up for that sort of deal.
Maybe because it was interesting enough to spend 15 seconds opening it in a new tab, but not an additional minute to create a bogus email?
Your argument is the excluded middle.
Here's a bad car analogy. I might be interested in buying a car at $20k, but not at $2,000,000.
-- Barbie
Any site that asks for my email address right away, forget it.
I have 700+ email addresses on spamgourmet.com. I get mail on the ones that I want to, and throw out the mail on the other addresses. I can turn them on and off through a web interface.
Why doesn't this work for you?
Because a genealogy site - ANY genealogy site - isn't worth the 15 seconds of my time it would take. So if you want me to look at it, you have to make the barrier to entry pretty much zero.
I have no interest in tracing my ancestry. I know who my parents were, and that's good enough for me. The only reason I went there was idle curiosity. In other words, they offer nothing that I value, so why bother giving them an email address?
However, its' simply not worth it for me.
-- Barbie
Go ask the Mormons. They maintain the most extensive set of genealogical records on pretty much everyone.
Well...
"This goes against claims of major health benefits from consuming foods and particularly supplements that contain antioxidants."/quote?
Good thing that worms in a lab are so biologically analogous to humans. Time to stop eating tomatoes, broccoli, and spinach
You share a majority (75%) of your genes with worms, you worm!
We can even swap human and worm genes and they continue to work.
-- Barbie
And next year's media campaign:
"We ARM the world
We ARM the children
We ARM the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start switching
There's a choice we're making
Getting Wintel out of our lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just wait and seeeeeeeeee.
-- Barbie
Cheez-whiz isn't food, it's a 'food product'. Thus, it is more along the lines of industrial chemicals and probably should be vetted by the EPA (but that's another story).
Cheez Whiz - something even my dogs won't eat. And dogs will eat baby diapers and "treats" from the kitty litter box. And yet parents will feed it to their kids.
Announcer: First prize is a year's supply of Cheeze Whiz.
Contestant: What's second prize?
Announcer: TWO year's supply of Cheeze Whiz.
-- Barbie
yea that was England dude, don't try to dump that shit on the US. I'm thinking you knew this and just conveniently left it out, because it didn't fit your message.
My message is quite simple - that other countries, which in former years were unenlightened, have allowed LGBT to serve in the military, in civilian capacities connected to the military, and in training programs such as ROTC that subsidize people's education, without negative effects.
This definitely fits in with slashdot, where we discuss not just technology, but its social implications. People in the US are denied opportunities to advance in certain areas of technology with one of the biggest employers - the US military - because of anti-LGBT sentiment.
So it's not me "dumping that s*** on the US" - it's the US "dumping that s***" on its own people.
-- Barbie
well if other countries military does it, we should to right? extrapolate that out a second and think about why that's a retarded reason to do something.
Don't be such a bunch of cowards. NATO and the EU are already there - they've proven that the fears of allowing LGBT persons to serve openly were overblown.
If you refuse to learn from and profit off of the experience of others, you have a problem. Narcissists often do. "We're different." "We're special." Yes, lambchop, you certainly are. While other countries got rid of the bogey-man long ago, you still cower at the thought that "some gay guy might see my junk in the shower." Seriously - that's one of the most frequent themes cited.
It doesn't take much to scare you, does it?
-- Barbie
I've seen those militaries overseas and I'm not impressed. I'd prefer we not become like those militaries.
Perhaps you don't think the US should partner with most of it's NATO allies, the EU, Israel, or Russia?
The list
Do you really want to compare the last 50 years of US military successes with that of, say, Israel?
Those are just 2 of many ways that it's relevant, but they should be enough to show that it's entirely relevant to slashdot.
Other sites might cover it, but they don't have the same mix of people commenting on it. So again, it's relevant, because many of us here either are part of the LGBT community, or know someone who is, and as a group, we come to it with a slightly different perspective than Joe Six-pack on Facebook.
It's also relevant because many tech companies are at the forefront in equal treatment for LGBT, and it's about time that the military, if it wants to be able to select the best from a wider pool of talent, stop shooting itself in the foot with artificial limitations.
-- Barbie
The "unit cohesion" argument is bunk. It's the same argument that was made against a racially integrated service. And for keeping women out of combat roles (and thus out of the higher ranks - the military version of the glass ceiling).
If someone's willing to put their life on the line for you, what should it matter who they have waiting for them back home?
Again, other countries have no problems with gays and lesbians serving - they expect their soldiers to behave with a certain level of professionalism and respect for each other.
Just like other countries have no problems with same-sex marriage. They expect their citizens to behave with a certain level of respect for each other.
DADT is institutionalized gay-bashing, nothing less. It shows a paternalistic attitude of significant parts of the military leadership, who believe their men and women can't be trusted to behave as professionals. Read the comments of those who have fought it over the last year. "Some gay guy might see my junk in the shower!" What are they afraid of? That the gay will laugh and say "I've seen better."?
If people in every other walk of life can do it, perhaps its because the military has engaged in anti-same-sex behavior for so long that the self-selection process has yielded an organization that attracts people who are out of step with the rest of society.
That can't be a good thing. Not for a military that, ultimately, is under civilian command. And certainly not for a military that serves as a representative to the rest of the world under some of the worst conditions possible. How are you supposed to have a military that is capable, during peace-keeping, of showing tolerance to other cultures, when you can't even tolerate a large segment of your own?
-- Barbie
You then try again to imply that a policy specifically for military personnel will effect civilians.
Until the military clones their soldiers, they'll come from the civilian population. Think "job opportunities". Think "educational subsidies" for university students. Think "careers."
. Yes, the military spends vast amounts on research, but it's research performed by civilians. You haven't shown any connection between research or researchers and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Aside from the obvious ones I listed above - background security checks. When people feel the need to be "in the closet", either as civilians or in the military, security is already compromised. Everything being out in the open means no more opportunities for blackmail.
-- Barbie
Singling out Alan Turning is ignoring the contributions by many other people who would have achieved the same results without him. If it wasn't for his dramatic life story he'd be as nameless as the others.
He did it (the code cracking) withing the time frame that it was needed. If someone else had done it 10 years later, it would have meant millions more dead.
Other countries have gays and lesbians serving openly without problems. Maybe you need better leaders?
Let's see. Does the name Alan Turing ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
The military owes a lot to the gays and lesbians, both civilian and military, who put up with the intolerance and ignorance to serve their country. The military is also the single biggest spender on technology. Any change in military hiring and staffing of this nature is relevant.
The summary is a bit inaccurate - the military is in fact required to implement the repeal; the actual timetable is set out in the bill, based on certain milestones. So DADT is pretty much dead.
At a buck a page for facebook, productivity will return to business offices, and those "Like" buttons that track you from site to site (facebook's behavioral tracking) even when you're not logged in, will disappear.
Yawn. I'm an ordinary working person and I have a small (by McMansion standards) house covered with solar panels. And I drive a car that gets 34 mpg. I don't care a bit what gasoline costs ($8-10/gallon would be fine, to encourage SUVs off the roads) and I like not paying for electricity. And the 75% of the cost of my panels covered by various government entities subsidized my panels from other *electric* customers, not gasoline taxes. You too could invest a paltry $15K to avoid electric bills for the rest of your time in your house, ordinary working person though you might be..
In other words
Also, your solar panel production contributed to the unregulated release of NF3 - 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2
How about 9/11?
But it's really not funny that there doesn't seem to be an inch of daylight between government and big business.
Of course not - they like doing it with the lights off.
Q: How many politicians and bankers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None - they like keeping you in the dark.
Even wonder that the show might be on the other foot, that the Bank of America knowingly dealt with criminals of all sorts including terrorists and that is what they really fear.
You mean like how the KKK can still use their BofA VISA to support the boys in the hoods.
Lots of people are still sharing it, even though it was uploaded in August.
Don't worry about download speed - you'll max out your connection.